Topic: People are really doubting Wright's claims about being Satoshi - page 2. (Read 1541 times)
Doesn't seem credible to me but you never know.
The real Satoshi could just send a message saying he is not Craig.
This actually might happen the more I think about it. If Craig is not the real Satoshi, then the real Satoshi might want to dispel these rumors before it goes too far.
This actually might happen the more I think about it. If Craig is not the real Satoshi, then the real Satoshi might want to dispel these rumors before it goes too far.
Which may be the intent of whatever organization that may be trying to make this happen.
The real Satoshi could just send a message saying he is not Craig.
This actually might happen the more I think about it. If Craig is not the real Satoshi, then the real Satoshi might want to dispel these rumors before it goes too far.
This actually might happen the more I think about it. If Craig is not the real Satoshi, then the real Satoshi might want to dispel these rumors before it goes too far.
well the tx signing was a fraud, it was another transaction, from 2009, so he still need to provide a valid proof, either via signing or via moving(coins moving from second block)
So that right there proves his validity and integrity.Talk no more about this fool I say. He will disappear once his 15 minutes are up.
I said it before and i will say it again. he is not satoshi he is truing to force satoshi out.
Do you think it'll work?
No.
no way
This is an interesting theory. My own 2 satoshis is that if something like this happened, the real Satoshi would hold his fire until he saw that the bitcoin community was reaching a mistaken consensus and had accepted a con artist in his place. Only then might he act. And even then Satoshi would do so in a way that would protect his own anonymity while demonstrating that false claimant was a scammer. Satoshi doesn't need to hold a press conference or appear in person to demonstrate his identity/ownership of private keys, and use those keys to send authentifiable messages denouncing the scammer.
I woke up early in the morning today with a call from my parents that were looking to tell me that the creator of bitcoin was found. It was all over the news and all over the world too. Even if this is a lie, be sure that many people heard about bitcoin today, the news weren't even that bad this time.
I said it before and i will say it again. he is not satoshi he is truing to force satoshi out.
Do you think it'll work?
No.
well the tx signing was a fraud, it was another transaction, from 2009, so he still need to provide a valid proof, either via signing or via moving(coins moving from second block)
...he would proof it then disappear or do whatever he wants as he said .
If he proved it he wouldn't be able to disappear ever again. And we all know this much about satoshi - he values his privacy.
This way he stands a chance.
Perhaps.
Having been involutarily outed last year, the current ambiguity works, I would suggest, in his favour.
So far he didn't prove anything (at least for the public at large). All he did is verbal claims to be creator of bitcoin plus
in his blog post very bulky manual about hashing,signing,verifying without using a wallet.
Not impressed at all I am.
I said it before and i will say it again. he is not satoshi he is truing to force satoshi out.
Do you think it'll work?
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1010
Professional Native Greek Translator (2000+ done)
I said it before and i will say it again. he is not satoshi he is truing to force satoshi out.
Everyone knows the simple and clear way to establish a claim to being Satoshi is to publically publish a digital signature proving you hold the private key to the Genesis block. This wouldn't be final proof (we could argue conspiracy theories forever on that point), but it would be a clear hurdle to pass.
So a person who claims to be Satoshi and has a chance to offer such proof, and specifically fails to do so - as is the case with Wright - can only mean two things:
1. He's not Satoshi and this is a scam.
2. He is Satoshi, but there is some reason, some motive, for not wanting to convince everyone he is Satoshi, at least not all at once.
I've been pondering if #2 is viable. It's hard to see the point of such a gambit. Perhaps to avoid rocking the market too suddenly? But that doesn't strike me as a big enough justification to dribble out the evidence second-hand via Gavin and Jon's word. So I'm sticking with some form of #1 for now.
So a person who claims to be Satoshi and has a chance to offer such proof, and specifically fails to do so - as is the case with Wright - can only mean two things:
1. He's not Satoshi and this is a scam.
2. He is Satoshi, but there is some reason, some motive, for not wanting to convince everyone he is Satoshi, at least not all at once.
I've been pondering if #2 is viable. It's hard to see the point of such a gambit. Perhaps to avoid rocking the market too suddenly? But that doesn't strike me as a big enough justification to dribble out the evidence second-hand via Gavin and Jon's word. So I'm sticking with some form of #1 for now.
Yeah I wonder why he wouldn't want to prove it all at once, I'm inclined to agree with #1 as well.
Especially since his blog post said he wanted to clear things up and set the record straight. This fiasco does exactly the opposite.
Everyone knows the simple and clear way to establish a claim to being Satoshi is to publically publish a digital signature proving you hold the private key to the Genesis block. This wouldn't be final proof (we could argue conspiracy theories forever on that point), but it would be a clear hurdle to pass.
So a person who claims to be Satoshi and has a chance to offer such proof, and specifically fails to do so - as is the case with Wright - can only mean two things:
1. He's not Satoshi and this is a scam.
2. He is Satoshi, but there is some reason, some motive, for not wanting to convince everyone he is Satoshi, at least not all at once.
I've been pondering if #2 is viable. It's hard to see the point of such a gambit. Perhaps to avoid rocking the market too suddenly? But that doesn't strike me as a big enough justification to dribble out the evidence second-hand via Gavin and Jon's word. So I'm sticking with some form of #1 for now.
So a person who claims to be Satoshi and has a chance to offer such proof, and specifically fails to do so - as is the case with Wright - can only mean two things:
1. He's not Satoshi and this is a scam.
2. He is Satoshi, but there is some reason, some motive, for not wanting to convince everyone he is Satoshi, at least not all at once.
I've been pondering if #2 is viable. It's hard to see the point of such a gambit. Perhaps to avoid rocking the market too suddenly? But that doesn't strike me as a big enough justification to dribble out the evidence second-hand via Gavin and Jon's word. So I'm sticking with some form of #1 for now.
Yeah I wonder why he wouldn't want to prove it all at once, I'm inclined to agree with #1 as well.
If he really is , he would proof it then disappear or do whatever he wants as he said . (I guess he said he won't speak to the media again and he don't want any money or any Nobel prize 
) so I personally don't buy it . He could at least connect to his forum account to proof little something (even if it's hackable ).
) so I personally don't buy it . He could at least connect to his forum account to proof little something (even if it's hackable ). 
As above pretty much. If he is, then he should also be aware how sceptical everyone's going to be and there are faster and more direct ways of doing it.
Everyone knows the simple and clear way to establish a claim to being Satoshi is to publically publish a digital signature proving you hold the private key to the Genesis block. This wouldn't be final proof (we could argue conspiracy theories forever on that point), but it would be a clear hurdle to pass.
So a person who claims to be Satoshi and has a chance to offer such proof, and specifically fails to do so - as is the case with Wright - can only mean two things:
1. He's not Satoshi and this is a scam.
2. He is Satoshi, but there is some reason, some motive, for not wanting to convince everyone he is Satoshi, at least not all at once.
I've been pondering if #2 is viable. It's hard to see the point of such a gambit. Perhaps to avoid rocking the market too suddenly? But that doesn't strike me as a big enough justification to dribble out the evidence second-hand via Gavin and Jon's word. So I'm sticking with some form of #1 for now.
So a person who claims to be Satoshi and has a chance to offer such proof, and specifically fails to do so - as is the case with Wright - can only mean two things:
1. He's not Satoshi and this is a scam.
2. He is Satoshi, but there is some reason, some motive, for not wanting to convince everyone he is Satoshi, at least not all at once.
I've been pondering if #2 is viable. It's hard to see the point of such a gambit. Perhaps to avoid rocking the market too suddenly? But that doesn't strike me as a big enough justification to dribble out the evidence second-hand via Gavin and Jon's word. So I'm sticking with some form of #1 for now.
The Bitcoin community is very reluctant to believe Craig Wright's claims of being Satoshi, what do you guys think?
Article link: http://bitcoinist.net/community-wary-craig-wright/
Article link: http://bitcoinist.net/community-wary-craig-wright/
Jump to: